As Liverpool face Manchester City in the second leg of their Carling Cup contest today, both teams will be without their main players, Luis Suarez and Mario Balotelli, respectively. Both players are suspended for acts the Football Association merits such punishment.
Suarez, as we all know, is still going through his eight-game ban for the race row with Manchester United’s Patrice Evera, while Balotelli is beginning his four-match ban for allegedly purposefully stamping on Tottenham Hotspur’s Scott Parker on Sunday morning. Some camera angles would show him trying to regain his balance, while others imply a deliberate knock against the former West Ham midfielder.
The question, I pose, however, is the severity of the punishments.
I have always questioned how the FA’s investigative team was able to determine that what Suarez called Evra – “negro” – is racist, while handing out only a four-match ban to Balotelli for what seems to be more violent conduct.
Uruguayan friends I have spoken with affirm that negro is a commonly used word in their society and that no racist or derogatory suggestion is ever implied. One can argue it is a different society and culture altogether from England’s.
As I’ve discussed with others at Slainte, this extreme reaction to Suarez’s comments reflects the overly-PC culture that pervades everywhere. Footballers wind each other up on the pitch and if every comment were to be examined and punished, football would stop. Far from condoning racist chants from spectators and abuse on the pitch, one asks for a more reasonable approach.
On the other hand, Balotelli gets to sit out only four games for an act that could have proved to be more dangerous than it turned out to be. It may not have possessed the deliberateness of Roy Keane’s attack on Manchester City’s Alf-Inge Haland, but it could prove to be just pure rash.
For speech one is severely punished, while for a physical act one is punished.
Tags: FA, Football Association, Liverpool, Luis Suarez, Manchester City, Manchester United, Mario Balotelli, Patrice Evra, Tottenham Hoptspur
January 25th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Nigel,
You bring up a very interesting discussion. I will state off the bat, that I do not understand the FA’s “behind the curtain” guidelines, or review of how such guidelines are actually followed by referees and other people in positions of power to deal out and uphold the judgements handed out. But what I do understand is the FA’s continuing stance to end racism across the table when it comes to football. I’m sure we all remember the banners held up at the beginning of all the world cup matches in 2010 and all the adverts on TV.
When Suarez used the word, I doubt he was having an involved discussion with Evra about the various usages in different parts of the world. It was blatant, and, given footballers’ penchants for on-field arguments, it was probably meant to incite Evra. If the FA makes such a hard declaration to stand against racism, then, by god, they better follow through when incidents occur which, in the global community, are seen as derogatory.
Thanks for opening up this discussion. See you at the pub soon!
January 25th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for your response, Muriel. Who really knows the FA’s decision-making on this? I only thought that an eight-game ban seemed much. Maybe a lesser amount of games might have seemed more appropriate.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
If you guys were interested in some insight on the FA’s decision you should check out the actual report here: http://bit.ly/t0Fc6e
It’s quite lengthy, but there are definitely some key paragraphs that are pretty telling into how the FA functions when it comes to he-said she-said type allegations, and as to what drove them to bump the ban to a total of 8 games.
January 27th, 2012 at 9:09 am
Nigel,
Thanks for sharing your opinion on this, and I agree with your questioning of the FA’s decision making process. I have read the report that Yanick posted, and I ended up more puzzled and upset than before. It does speak to the # of games banned, but it does not provide much, calling it a subjective decision to be based on expertise, not a mathematical calculation. The ban on Suarez was doubled for repetition of a word. Can not Balotelli’s actions be also called overly aggressive?
Also strange, the video evidence to support Evra’s claims is inconclusive at best. Video coverage of Balotelli’s stamp, however, is considered much stronger evidence. Where is the consistency?
I want to comment on Muriel’s point about the FA’s action on racism charges. It is incredibly insulting to me that Evra was not even called out for calling Suarez “South American.” Evra submitted questionable evidence on this but the commission ignored the holes. Let us remember that Evra is a diplomat’s son and has lived in Europe for practically his entire life. Suarez comes from an incredibly poor and politically undermined country. Racisim comes in many forms, not only the ones that white people are immediately aware of.
To make an argument that some “in the global community” see something as racist, therefore the FA must dole out punishment, is not merely unfair but does more harm than good at engendering friendship mutual respect, and understanding. Especially since the commission and the FA found Suarez to not be racist in his remarks. I say, let the FA regulate any wrongdoing that can be backed up with concrete visual evidence or witnesses.
Ok, I’m done ranting.